What is on the pro side of teaching the subject a lot of parents don't want taught in school?
Asked by
flo (
13313
)
December 14th, 2017
For example: Transexuality, the so called. “I don’t want my child to believe she is defective i.e I don’t want her to think I don’t like “female” activities so I must be a male, so I need to see the doctor kind of thing. The parents’ thinking: If it’s taught in school they will teach that it makes sense that a the child believes he/she is physically defective, so I don’t want her to be taught that.”
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
84 Answers
Like evolution? Because it is the truth, that is why.
The pro side is when it’s true and valuable to learn about it before they become closed-minded adults who don’t think it’s true because they were never taught about it.
In some cases it might be a pro to open up a new line of thought in growing minds. But by your question, it sounds like you are referring to something that most parents don’t like. In cases like that, I think the school needs to explain their reasoning. I might be that parents don’t feel a particular topic is appropriate for a child of a certain age. Dialogue…that is what is missing and what causes a lot of the strife. But if a lot of parents are against something, the school, which is supposed to serve the public and the parents are the public, needs to really be able to defend their stance.
@flo, you should probably stop attempting to talk about transgender, at least until after you make an effort to open your eyes to what it really means to be transgender. It is very clear that it is a phenomenon you don’t understand in the slightest.
@Flo —“I don’t like ‘female activities so I must be a male, so I need to see the doctor kind of thing.”—
The above statement is not what it means to be transgender.
We have spoken until we’re blue in the face giving you definitions, and real life examples of what it means to be transgender (on most of the other Q’s that discussed being transgender), but it seems like you still don’t understand, or you just think it’s too weird or upsetting, so you try to deny that transgender people exist.
The reason a school might want to talk about, and teach this subject, is for the simple reason, to educate people. Apparently a lot of people don’t understand it.
I think we’ve done a pretty good job here on Fluther trying to explain what being transgender is, considering that we have a member whose child is a transgender person. Lots and lots of information was discussed, real life examples were given. That is what a school would be doing by teaching a subject about transgender people.
@Zaku “Being taught” in this case is being brain washed.
Anyone of you who feel/ think that way, i.e, “I’m defective” yes, you are defective.
…Do you want anyone to teach your child harmful things like that? No, of course not.
@seawulf575 But growing minds are like older people who can be fooled easily aren’t they?
It is a teacher’s job to present the facts, not to opine about what it means to them.
@flo …Do you want anyone to teach your child harmful things like that? No, of course not.
You are teaching harmful things by suggesting transgender people are defective. This kind of thinking leads to bullying, harassment and worse for transgender people.
The 2011 National Transgender Discrimination Survey found that kids in grades K-12 who identified as transgender or gender non-conforming reported high rates of bullying and violence at school: 78 percent reported harassment, 35 percent reported physical assault, and 12 percent reported sexual violence. Even more disturbing is the fact that, for 31 percent of these kids and teens, harassment came at the hands of teachers and school staff, the very people who should have protected them. Trans and gender non-conforming students of color experienced even higher levels of school bullying and violence.
Forty-one percent of the trans respondents to the National Transgender Discrimination Survey said that they had attempted suicide at some point in their lives — a percentage that is more than 25 times higher than that of the general population. Trans people who experienced housing discrimination, job discrimination, rejection by their families, bullying in school, physical violence, or sexual assault had an even higher rate of suicide attempts.
Tellingly, a report by the Williams Institute found that trans people who are able to maintain strong relationships with their families after coming out have a much lower suicide rate of 33 percent (which is, granted, still much higher than the national average).
^ @flo These are the reasons why it is important to educate our young so transgender people will not be discriminated against. They are innocent people.
I have a transgender child. This topic is very important to me and I have countless hours of study on the topic. Feel free to pm me if you would like more information.
@Aethelwine So, if you don’t feel like what you’re supposed to feel like there’s something wrong with you? Ok then. If I want you to feel bad too short because you’re 5 feet, or whatever, let’s say and if you refuse to feel bad, something is wrong with you? Hi-lie-ree-yes.
I have a question for you, @flo. Do you know one person who doesn’t have a flaw? One person who is not perfect? We are all defective in some way, but transgender people are treated unfairly. They are harassed, discriminated against, bullied, killed. Education is the only way to stop this unfair treatment.
@Aethelwine I rest my case thank you there is no flaw, you are the one who is telling them they’re flawed. Thank you, many times for making my point.
What case? What point? That it’s wrong to teach young children what transgender means? I am here to share facts. I have chosen to not engage with bigots because if I did I would have no life (they are everywhere), so if your point is to shout out how wrong it is to be transgender, I’m out.
@Aethelwine. Flo doesn’t get it. I’m not sure why she doesn’t get it. We’ve given her lots and lots of information on the subject of transgender people and why it’s important to educate people on the subject (which is mostly to stop the cycle of violence toward them) but something isn’t clicking with her, and she is misunderstanding us. At this point, I’m not sure what else any of us can say.
^It’s sad. I’m always hopeful that someone will learn when they ask these questions.
@Aethelwine
I had a boss that use to remind us,” Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.” In other words; there is difficulty and pointlessness of communicating a lesson that an individual is unwilling or unready to learn !
@flo being different does not imply defective. What schools should teach is that there is a diversity of lifestyles, with no one of them being better than any other.
@flo I have a hard time even understanding what you’re asking, saying, or thinking.
Your question seemed to be general: “What is on the pro side of teaching the subject a lot of parents don’t want taught in school?” and I tried to answer that in general.
But your replies seem to indicate that your real topic of interest is the example about teaching about transgender issues in school. But I can’t even follow what you’ve written clearly enough to know what opinion you even have about the subject, or what you’d like us to share our views about.
No public school teacher today would teach that one kind of person is defective or flawed over another. The end @flo. If a parent prefers the child to believe that they need to find alternative education.
@flo yes, children, much like older people, can be fooled. That is why it is imperative that parents participate in their children’s education. Stop sitting by and letting the school do whatever because you don’t feel like putting for the effort.
Key words and phrases, thank you
@LostInParadise “lifestyle”
@Aethelwine “Flaw”
@seawulf575 “it is imperative that parents participate in their children’s education. Stop sitting by and letting the school do whatever…” (which is the parents who don’t want the school to tell them that they are defective, saying)
Seems to me that the university created a tempest in a teapot. What is your take?
They were trying to muzzle her. Intimidation, bullying. abuse of power, ...
@flo ^^ that is your perception. No where is bullying or abuse of power mentioned.
THE SCHOOLS WILL NOT TEACH THE STUDENT’S THAT ANYONE IS DEFECTIVE OR INFERIOR FLO!!!
@Tropical_Willie Really?!? If an article describes bullying and abuse of power but doesn’t actually use those words, you can’t recognize it for what it is?
To the rest, @flo has you all stirred up because she chose the topic of transexuality. You all act like it is just a wonderful thing and don’t want anyone to have a different opinion. That is the crux of the problem. Most of our liberal school teachers feel the exact same way. They are psychologically incapable of teaching all sides of a topic like this. If they brought it up as a topic in a sociology course for instance, it would never be brought up neutrally. It would be only that Transexuality is great and normal and that’s that. There would never be a class where it was brought up as “transexuality is a phenomenon we are seeing in today’s society in increasing rates. Some people believe it is good because….(fill in the blank) whereas others feel it is not good because….(fill in the blank). That would be too much like allowing the children to make up their own minds. The posts @flo has cited are only a few examples of where liberal professors/teachers/administrators harass anyone that doesn’t go along with the liberal agenda. And offering all sides of a topic fairly and evenly is most certainly not in the liberal agenda.
Transgender has nothing to do with sexuality. It is not a lifestyle. There is no “other side” when it comes to transgender. If you have an opinion that it is wrong, you are discriminating against a group of innocent people and that makes you a bigot.
@seawulf575
On your anti-centrist or anti-liberal kick again.
You probably blame the liberals for crucifying Jesus they might be Jews.
S M H
@Aethelwine Thank you for making my point for me. I merely pointed out that a fair and open education would present both sides, right or wrong, and let the students decide. You then want to shut me up by calling me a bigot because I don’t support Transgender. Several things wrong with that…one, the topic was transexual, not transgender. Second, I made no opinion one way or the other. Why is it so scary for someone to have a different opinion? Here’s a few thoughts for you that might make transexualism bad: The rate of STDs among transexuals is 3x the national norm. 3x. The rate of suicides among transexuals is higher than norm as well. There are two health reasons why I may not want to support it.
@Tropical_Willie So you are saying that merely posing the idea that teaching openly and equally on topics is now anti-centrist and anti-liberal. so what you are saying is that liberals want to totally close off all other thought in the classroom. You are right, I’m anti-liberal. I find that offensive and totalitarian.
^This is about gender neutral pronouns that transgender people use. @flo is confusing transexuality with transgender. This topic is about transgender. There are no other sides when it comes to transgender. They are innocent people. Did you look at the statistists I shared in my first response? These are statsistics my child has to deal with because of misinformed people like you and @flo. Ignorant people want to shut my child up and others like him just for existing, so excuse me for being passionate about this. Please tell me how transgender people harm you in your every day life.
In general terms, the word transgender refers to people who identify differently from their biological sex. For example, a transgender person who is biologically female may feel that a male identity is a better fit and take the following steps:
• Use a male name instead of a female name.
• Use male pronouns instead of female pronouns.
• Dress as a man.
• Engage in activities that are typically associated with men in that culture.
A transsexual is a person who physically transitions from male to female or vice versa.
He or she might take hormones to suppress the characteristics of the biological gender or promote the characteristics of the desired gender. In this way, transsexuals can control, to some extent, traits like facial hair and breast development.
Transsexuals may also decide to have gender reassignment surgery, in which – to the extent that is possible – the anatomical features of the biological gender are removed and the features of the desired gender are added.
@Aethelwine the terms are loaded with emotions for @flo.
I truly believe she can’t differentiate because the words are too emotionally loaded for her.
@Aethelwine The difference between a transexual and a transgender involves where they are coming from. Transexual involves the body, Transgender involves our culture. It is highly arrogant of you to suddenly assume @flo was talking about transgender when she specifically stated transexual. And in the end, the question was not whether you supported transexualism or transgenderism. it was whether schools should be allowed to teach stuff that parents totally oppose. I get that you are wrapped around the axle on transgenderism…that’s your thing. It consumes you to the point where any hint about it and your hackles raise and you take instant offense. But stick to topic. If you want to open up a query about transgenderism, have at it. It might be therapeutic for you.
As for my answers, I have been fairly neutral about the entire thing. I merely stated how I thought the topic might be presented in school equitably. Apparently to you that is ignorant and hurtful because having opposing viewpoints is just evil, isn’t it? And nothing says love and inclusion like calling people names (ignorant) and trying to shut down any viewpoint they might have that disagrees with your own confused mind.
@seawulf575 I am ignorant about many things. Claiming someone is ignorant is not name calling. Ignorance is lack of knowledge or information. I was ignorant about transgender issues before my child came out early this year. The first thing I did was educate myself. Since I have first hand knowledge I answered @flo‘s question with facts. I just read a response of yours on another question where you were berating another user for not sharing facts. Facts seem to be important to you, so I don’t understand your beef when it comes to this issue.
Again, flo was incorrect when she used the word transexual. The question, details, and link she provided has to do with teaching children gender neutral pronouns.
Transgenderism is not the correct term to use when referring to transgender people It is a made up term by people who are ignorant about the subject (fake news).
In referring to transgender issues as “transgenderism” it can be framed as an ideology, philosophy, political strategy… It places transgender issues in the realm of Environmentalism, Feminism, Libertarianism and any other -ism you’d care to think about. If a thing is a philosophy, ideology or political strategy then it can be diminished from the status of objective fact to controversial opinion. Once you move something from fact to opinion then it’s easier to build “everyone has an opinion” arguments and to place specious arguments on more equal footing.
In many instances, where you see “transgenderism” used you can substitute “transgender identity” or “transgender issues” or just “transgender people”, all of which would be more accurate.
I am not confused one bit and I do not need to find answers on Fluther. I have tremendous support in the medical and transgender community. I am here to provide facts I have learned this past year. There are few people on Fluther who are either transgender or have transgender children. I would hope my answers that contain facts would be helpful for those who truly want to learn.
Here is some science based research on the subject if you would like to be informed. http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/gender-lines-science-transgender-identity/
Edited to add.
Actually I thought transgender is before surgery etc, and transexual is after the full transformation. Either way it’s about some people saying that they feel the opposite of their anatomy, right?
I just happen to have given transgender/ transexual as an example. I was thinking, re. the “What is the pro side”, that parents who are against students being thought that stereotyping is acceptable, (i.e women are supposed to feel one way and males are supposed to feel another way) are going to teach their children at home that there are no such feelings, and that it’s conditioning/stereotyping that makes us think that. That the whole thing arises from and promotes stereotyping.
Also the link I posted is about “gender neutral pronouns”, again the word gender, anatomy feeling, conditioning, stereotyping, bullying, ... Can’t say that has nothing to do with the subject.
As @seawulf575 Right on the money.
…“being taught” sorry for the spelling error in “who are against students being thought that stereotyping is acceptable”
…And let’s not call each other names, It doesn’t help in any way whatsoever, right?
@seawulf575 right on the money, except for the the topic might be “presented in school equitably” part.
^Sorry…my bad. Just my interpretation, I guess. I have a personal viewpoint that I don’t mind most topics being addressed in school, at the appropriate age level. But I feel that what has happened in our educational system is that the schools/administrators/teachers have injected their own personal feelings and refuse to present any opposing ideas. In fact you see it all the time where a school or teacher ridicules or even attacks those that hold opposing viewpoints. School is supposed to be a place where we teach young minds how to think. You can’t do that by only presenting one side of anything. Political and social viewpoints need to stay out of the teaching as well. Stop trying to taint our children. If you as a teacher favor a particular viewpoint and believe it is right, then you shouldn’t be afraid of anyone hearing an opposing viewpoint. If you try forcing it, you are no longer teaching, your are indoctrinating. There is enough of that in the world without schools contributing more. I don’t understand the worry about free thought.
But what is the opposing side of for example, “genocide is crime against humanity?”
Well, you and I don’t see an opposing side, but there are those that are now trying to change the standards. No one will come out and say genocide is good, well, no one but a psychopath, but there are some that will try justifying the actions of someone trying to commit genocide. But when I talk of teaching opposing viewpoints, I’m talking about things that have some conflict in today’s society. Want to talk about how we all got here? Evolution is a good way, but there are many that are creationists and I believe you need to present both ideas to the class, not touting one and ridiculing the other…just present the ideas. Want to have a talk about abortion? Same thing. Discuss the pros and cons equally. Even when discussion past or current presidents, discuss the facts, not preach opinion.
@LostInParadise Really? And how do you know? 200 years ago most of the things we take for granted today that science brought us didn’t exist and were thought to be magic, impossible, fantasy, or evil. So what makes you so omnipotent that you can attest to the idea that Intelligent design won’t eventually be shown to be true? I’m not even suggesting that everything that has ever been brought up in our past be considered true. Flat Earth for example can be proven false. Yet we can bring it up to show where we came from as a race of humans with our thinking. But when you do that, you need to discuss WHY it isn’t true…show the proof.
Intelligent design does not satisfy the criterion for scientific truth. For something to be scientifically true, there has to be an experiment that could falsify it. For example, if I want to test the hypothesis of the law of gravity, I devise an experiment that lets go of an object over the ground. The hypothesis is falsified if the object does not fall. Since the object does in fact fall, we therefore provisionally accept the law of gravity until some other experiment succeeds in falsifying it.
I dare you to devise an experiment that could falsify intelligent design. You may not like the criterion for scientific truth, but it sure has worked damn well so far. Feel free to provide an alternative.
@LostInParadise And in 1870, Jules Verne wrote about a nuclear powered submarine called the Nautilus. At that time, someone could have said that wasn’t scientific and was, instead, fantasy. They could have dared someone to devise and experiment that would prove it possible. Yet 84 years later, the very first nuclear submarine, named the Nautilus, was commissioned. Why? Because science developed to the point where it could be tested and created. So to claim something isn’t science just because you haven’t proved it yet puts you in line with all those back in 1870 that denied the possible reality of a nuclear powered submarine.
As for presenting Intelligent design in school…I ask, why not? You don’t have to present it as a proven fact, that is not what I’m saying. I’m saying you can present it as a hypothesis since that is what it is. What is so scary to you about presenting things to children and young adults and letting them think about them? Why do you want to limit their ability to reason and think or imagine?
For the last time, scientific statements have to be falsifiable. To use your Nautilus example, it would have been outside the bounds of science in 1870 to say whether such submarines could exist. If there is no falsifiability there is no science. It would have been inappropriate to discuss it in a science class in 1870. Science does grow and is able to cover increasing ground. As of now there is no known experiment that could falsify intelligent design. It lies outside of science.
@LostInParadise You are missing the point altogether. Many of our technological advances in the past 75 years stem from things like science fiction. Those ideas, put forth originally in books and comics, sparked the imagination of young minds to go forward and find a way to make them or to prove them. That is how science continues to grow. If all you want to teach is a narrow band of things, you are removing that spark and killing our technological future. If some young mind hears of Intelligent design as a hypothesis, even if told it has never been proven, that mind might go on to prove it…and then it would be fact. Just like nuclear submarines, watches and computers on your wrist, household computers, color TV, satellite communications, airplanes, flights to the moon….all the things that were fantasy at one point.
Science fiction is fine but not in science class. Teach it as part of literature or maybe philosophy. Science class is for teaching science. What we already know and how we got to know it is fascinating enough without throwing in fiction. Intelligent design is not even science fiction. It is theology and a class in theology or maybe philosophy is where it can be taught, not in a science class.
@LostInParadise How do you prevent the kind of thing in the link I posted? Lindsay Shepard and Laurier university?
@LostInParadise For that matter, the entire “scientific” answer to creation is speculation. It always comes back to the question “What came before that?” and it cannot answer. Big Bang for instance. Yep, there is good evidence of a big bang. Where did the initial material come from? Where did the energy come from? Most of the big things like that fall apart at some point. Intelligent Design helps answer most of those. And before you get too wound up, I’m not a giant fan of digging into any of this. At least not yet in our growth as a species. We are alive, the universe is surrounding us. Wonderful. Enjoy life, learn how to deal with the mundane problems we have on this planet that seem to kick our butts repeatedly. Solve that, and then worry about how things came to be.
But you are missing the point. You have a hypothesis, why not present it as such? From a strictly scientific method, you should accept all hypotheses for consideration until they can be proven or refuted.
No matter how far you go in science, it is always possible to ask why, but that does not discredit the value of what we have learned. We can do things now due to science that were unimaginable 300 years ago. I think of scientific knowledge as being like a circle. The circumference represents the boundaries of what we know. It keeps expanding, but so does the area of the circle, and the ratio of circumference to area keeps getting smaller.
I’m not suggesting that asking why will discredit the value of what we have learned. Exactly the opposite. Asking why drives us to learn new things. Imagine for a moment…some intelligence figured out how to create matter and energy. And along the way, they caused the big bang. Does that negate all we have learned? No. I just changes our thinking of why things are. It might open a whole new direction of study. We could learn more as we go. But when you refuse to want to drive the ability of free thought in minds, you take away the ability to ask why and you limit what we can learn.
I am in complete agreement. Science should and does constantly ask why. That there are so many questions is a mark of the success of science in expanding the scope of our knowledge. Intelligent design acts in the opposite direction. Saying something is the work of God eliminates the possibility of further exploration. God is perfect and beyond our understanding, so further enquiry is futile.
You are equating intelligent design with God, capital G. It could have been the work of some race of beings that live outside normal space time. We don’t know. Intelligent design merely believes that some aspects of our world/existence are better explained with intelligent cause, not random acts.
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php
I get that you hate even the idea of God. And that is exactly why we need to open up our schools…so that whole ideas aren’t lost because someone is afraid it might point to God.
Talking about intelligent design without mentioning God is just a sneaky way to introduce biblical ideas. How many people really believe we were created by aliens? And who created the aliens?
I don’t hate God. I just think that the idea of God must be separate from science. Galileo said, “The bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go” . The questions addressed by religion are different from those in science. Religion should not talk about laws of the universe and science should not talk about morality and ethics.
Intelligent Design doesn’t have to touch on God at all…that is the fun part about it. Granted, if you start proving that intelligent design actually does apply, then you get into the nature of the intelligence that produced the design. But the link I provided takes you to a site that doesn’t drive intelligent design from the religious point of view. They drive it from a scientific method point of view.
As for the last limitations you listed I disagree with you wholeheartedly. If religion doesn’t talk about the universe, it is missing a huge piece of the puzzle. And Science, without morality and ethics is plain evil.
Who created the aliens? Another group of aliens? Sorry, that aliens explanation doesn’t get us anywhere. Somewhere along the line, there must have been evolution.
Religion can talk all it wants about the universe, provided it does not dictate physical laws. Giving a blanket answer to everything as being the will of God shuts down all further inquiry. It is the opposite of scientific inquiry. Science opens up further questions. Religion slams the door.
Science is not designed to determine what is moral and what is immoral. You can’t derive ought from is. Just as I dared you to find a falsifiable experiment for intelligent design, I dare you to design an experiment that can determine if something is moral. It can’t be done. Discussions about morality is what is appropriate to religion and philosophy.
Intelligent Design doesn’t have to touch on God at all…” if it’s not God, who is the intelligent one who is “designing” stuff?
To cavemen, what we have and do today would seem god-like. Isn’t it possible there is a being or race of beings that are so far advanced that what they consider commonplace would seem miraculous to us?
Sure Seawulf. On another planet. But they would still be bound by the laws of physics and not magic.
@seawulf575 , You still have not answered my question. Who created the aliens? Even if we accept the preposterous notion that aliens created life on earth, you still have to explain who created life on the alien planet. You can go through a regression by saying that the aliens were created by other aliens but, given the finite age of our area of the universe, at some point evolution must have occurred. Given the overwhelming evidence for evolution on earth and the total lack of evidence for alien life forms on earth, we can simplify things considerably by getting rid of the whole notion of alien visits.
[Mod says] Moved to Social with OP’s permission.
Okay @LostInParadise YOU are the one that brought up Intelligent Design. I pointed out that it is a valid train of thought to be considered. I did this by providing a citation that delves into the idea of Intelligent Design from a scientific point of view. You are the one that claimed we should teach only what we know to be true and nothing more. But when I start poking at your “scientific truths” you run away. I was the one that pointed out that the big bang has some very valid points, but it doesn’t go back far enough. Where did all the material come from? But that you never answered. I have asked you why it is so scary to teach things that don’t conform with your, apparently, narrow minded views? You never answered. You claim that science continually asks the question “why”, yet every time I propose an idea to consider on a “why” question, you run away and say it isn’t proven. How do you prove or disprove anything if you never want to look at it? Now you want to try using my arguments against me. “Who created the aliens?” So by asking that, you are now assuming that there might be a higher intelligence and I should prove it to you? If you don’t believe something, you really can’t use it as a defense. The obvious answer to your question then becomes, if evolution is solid, why is it so orderly? How did it come into being? And where did we actually come from? What life form was produced out of the primordial soup that eventually became human? What is the path it took? If there is so much evidence, it should be easy to trace our lineage back to the beginning, n’est pas?
One last, and definitely last, time. Science looks at falsifiable hypotheses. Creation of the Universe by God is not a falsifiable hypothesis. It should not be taught in science class. You tried to muddy the waters by bringing in aliens, but you ended up back to the original claim by having God create the aliens.
This issue was raised in a court case. Check out the section with the heading ‘ID is not science’.
So your stance is that a judge can decide what is science? I thought science could decide what is science. So a political bureaucrat, who supports a political agenda, determines what is science. Thank you for completing my argument. It isn’t that we want to actually teach our children to think and question, we only want to push a political agenda in our schools. Thank you for making that the last word.
Okay, you win. When you can design an experiment that can falsify the creation by God hypothesis, let me know.
@LostInParadise So, females are supposed to feel like cooking cleaning, having babies, and males are supposed to feel like leading a country, military, space travel, engineering, ....all the male things. Science doesn’t say that does it? Did you respond to my post about stereotyping way up above?
Also I posted a link of a clear example of muzzling. Lindsay Shepard. Please post how you solve that?
@flo, I am confused about your argument. Schools should teach the value of diversity and the ability of people to choose how to live their lives. Transsexuality is one such option and homosexuality is another. These ways of living should be mentioned without casting aspersions on them.
Teaching children about transgender issues is not a political agenda, it’s a human rights agenda. Every child needs a lesson in human rights.
Hot coffee and Mcdonalds court case. Enuf said.
@flo, you are going to have to explain how that court case relates to this discussion.
Regarding that case, it is often taken as an example of a frivolous law suit, but that may not necessarily be so. McDonalds kept there coffee between 180 and 190 degrees, which is about as high as possible, since water boils at 212 degrees. McDonalds did not change temperatures, but they now have warning labels. I heard an interesting theory as to why fast food places serve their coffee so hot. The idea is that the restaurants want customers to stay for as long as possible in order to make it more likely that they will purchase additional items while waiting for their coffee to cool.
@LostInParadise See what I mean? You decided that the “yes, you’re defective” side corresponds with the coffee spiller’s side, and for a good reason. The defence lawyers would defend the sky is not blue side by the way. The jury gets it wrong sometimes. Why not bring up an article that says the jury got it wrong, or what the prosecution said?
… grammar correction: I meant “Juries get it wrong sometimes”
@flo,I did not make any connection between the two, because I still don’t see a relationship. I must be missing something.
I linked to the particular article to show that there are two sides to the issue. There is no shortage of articles that use this case as an example of a frivolous lawsuit.
You’re on the coffee spillers side right?
I will answer you if you explain how this relates to the original question.
I see an explanation of the connection is not forthcoming.
I do think that the woman was entitled to some compensation, though perhaps not quite so much as she received. Coffee served at such high temperatures at least required some warning, which McDonald’s currently displays.
You made the connection by siding with the spiller of the coffee, and only posting the pro her side.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
